Head-to-head comparison
Blue Guardian vs FundingPips
Compare FirmFax scores, account rules, reputation, fees, platforms, and current offers before choosing.
Blue Guardian vs FundingPips
FundingPips leads by 3 FirmFax points.
Missing info
B or C
Best account
2-Step Standard CFD 78/100 account scoreMissing info
B or C
Best account
FundingPips 2-Step 70/100 account scoreFast answer
FundingPips edges this matchup on the FirmFax master score (70 vs 67, a 3 points gap), though Blue Guardian owns the higher best-account score. Blue Guardian also carries fewer logged status issues (0 vs 1). The rules below decide the rest.
Best for Blue Guardian
Pick Blue Guardian for 2-Step Standard CFD, its top-scored tracked account at 78/100 — 8 points clear of FundingPips's best account.
Best for FundingPips
Pick FundingPips for FundingPips 2-Step, its top-scored tracked account at 70/100.
Next step
Blue Guardian
Best account: 2-Step Standard CFD. 25% off all accounts when you use code FAX.
Next step
FundingPips
Missing info
B or C
Best account: FundingPips 2-Step. Deal link.
The short version
What actually separates them
2 fields on the record split Blue Guardian and FundingPips. Everything else either matches or is not on the record yet.
Intraday trailing tightens against your open profit; end-of-day trailing only resets at the close; static never moves. This is the rule most likely to end an account.
A daily loss limit ends the session, not the account — but it decides how many attempts a bad open costs you.
Not comparable yet: consistency rule, starting price, activation fee, minimum days to a first payout, trader profit split — at least one of the two firms has no figure on record, so we do not draw a conclusion from it. A blank here means we have not confirmed the rule, not that the firm has none.
Fig. 01 — Category winners
Who wins each category
FundingPips wins more categories (3–0, 1 tied, 2 not comparable), but the right pick depends on which category matters most to you.
Price
No dataBlue Guardian publishes a starting price; we have none recorded for FundingPips, so there is no comparison to draw here yet.
Drawdown
FundingPips uses a more forgiving static drawdown.
Payouts
No dataBlue Guardian publishes a minimum number of days to a first payout; we have none recorded for FundingPips, so there is no comparison to draw here yet. Trader split is level or equally unrecorded, so nothing separates them here.
Rules
FundingPips has fairer rules overall (61 vs 36 on rule fairness).
Platforms
TieBoth list 3 platforms — confirm yours is supported.
Overall value
FundingPips has the higher overall FirmFax score (70 vs 67).
A “tie” means both firms publish the same answer. “No data” means one of them has no figure on record for that category, so there is nothing to compare — it is never a point against either firm.
Buyer guide
Which one should you choose?
Blue Guardian is stronger when...
- Pick Blue Guardian for 2-Step Standard CFD, its top-scored tracked account at 78/100 — 8 points clear of FundingPips's best account.
- Entry cost: $26.66 starting price, activation fee not recorded.
- Risk model: end-of-day trailing drawdown, daily loss limit 4% — confirm it fits how you size trades.
- Watch the 20% consistency rule before you scale into a big day.
- Payouts: Up to 90%, Payouts advertised from seven days; account model can vary, first withdrawal from 14 days.
FundingPips is stronger when...
- Pick FundingPips for FundingPips 2-Step, its top-scored tracked account at 70/100.
- Entry cost: no starting price on record, activation fee not recorded.
- Risk model: static drawdown, daily loss limit 5% — confirm it fits how you size trades.
- We have no consistency rule recorded for FundingPips — check its rules page before you plan around one big day.
- Payouts: Reward cycle chosen on the Master account - weekly 60%, bi-weekly 80%, monthly 100%, on demand 90%, On-demand positioning after consistency requirements are met.
Before you buy
FundingPips has no starting price on record, so there is no price comparison to make here yet — check both firm pages directly.
Blue Guardian has fewer logged status issues (0 vs 1); review each firm page before committing.
Payout cadence differs — Blue Guardian is Payouts advertised from seven days; account model can vary, FundingPips is On-demand positioning after consistency requirements are met — which compounds if you withdraw often.
Freshness: Blue Guardian was last reviewed 2026-09-07; FundingPips on 2026-09-10.
Fig. 02 — Score breakdown
Where each firm is stronger
A dash means the factor is unscored for that firm — the evidence it needs (a founding year, a public review sample) is not on record, so its weight moves to the factors that do have evidence rather than counting as a zero.
Fig. 03 — Same size, side by side
Compared at a $50,000 account
| At $50,000 | Blue Guardian | FundingPips |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown | Not recorded | Not recorded |
| Profit target | $4,500 | $4,000✓ |
A bigger max drawdown gives more room; a lower profit target is easier to clear. A dash means that figure is not on record at this size, so no checkmark is awarded either way. Review the exact figures for your selected account.
Fig. 04 — The tale of the tape
Head-to-head
| Metric | Blue Guardian | FundingPips |
|---|---|---|
| FirmFax master score | 67 | 70✓ |
| Best account score | 78 (2-Step Standard CFD)✓ | 70 (FundingPips 2-Step) |
| Reputation | Rating withheld | Strong reputation |
| Founded | 2021 | Not recorded |
| Starting price | $26.66 | Not recorded |
| Activation fee | Not recorded | Not recorded |
| Markets | Forex Crypto | Forex Crypto |
| Jurisdiction | UAE | UAE |
| Platforms | MetaTrader 5, TradeLocker, Match-Trader | MetaTrader 5, cTrader, Match-Trader |
| Drawdown | Trailing (end-of-day) | Static |
| Daily loss limit | 4% | 5% |
| Consistency rule | 20% | Not recorded |
| Profit split | Up to 90% | Reward cycle chosen on the Master account - weekly 60%, bi-weekly 80%, monthly 100%, on demand 90% |
| Payout frequency | Payouts advertised from seven days; account model can vary | On-demand positioning after consistency requirements are met |
| Min days to payout | 14 | Not recorded |
Checkmarks flag the objectively better value (higher score/reputation, older firm, lower price/fee) and are only awarded when both firms have that figure on record — “Not recorded” never loses a row. Rules are shown side by side without a “winner” because the best choice depends on your strategy.
Verified discount
25% off all accounts when you use code FAX
Official source · Last verified 2026-09-05
Current offer
Check current discount
Search answers
Blue Guardian vs FundingPips FAQ
Is Blue Guardian or FundingPips better for forex and crypto traders?
Blue Guardian has the higher best-account FirmFax score right now. The better pick is the one whose end-of-day trailing drawdown, platforms, and fees match how you trade.
Which is cheaper, Blue Guardian or FundingPips?
We cannot answer that yet: FundingPips has no starting price on record. Compare both firm pages directly.
How do drawdown rules compare between Blue Guardian and FundingPips?
Blue Guardian uses end-of-day trailing drawdown and FundingPips uses static drawdown. A static limit is generally more forgiving once you are in profit than a trailing one.
Do Blue Guardian and FundingPips have a consistency rule?
Blue Guardian enforces a 20% consistency rule, and we have no consistency rule on record for FundingPips. A blank is not a "no rule" — confirm it on the firm page before you count on it.
Does FirmFax rank Blue Guardian vs FundingPips using payouts?
Payout history is used as context. FirmFax scores focus on rules, track record, trader reputation, transparency, and accessibility.
More comparisons